I don't have any opinion in the Tom v. Andrew
debate, but I don't know about this "highest scorer =
best player" argument that Eric puts forth. Take
Robert Margolis, whom I had the pleasure of competing
against. He was always the top scorer at the tournaments
he attended, usually ahead of players like Yaphe,
Johnson, and Sheahan. But nobody would have said he was
anywhere near the level of those guys. They won
tournaments. He ran up the score against weak competition and
never won the big games. I'm not saying the same of
Tom, just that the argument for "the best players are
the ones who win the most important games" is
stronger than Eric suggests.
And I've seen both
Andrew and Tom on trash. If you throw that in, Andrew's
clearly the best. Tom was hopeless on pop
culture.
My two cents,
E.